“I think it's easy to underestimate just how delirious and taken with the Bush Administration much of the Congress (and the public, for that matter) were immediately after 911”.

So true. At times it appears that we are just now awakening to the mistakes made as a result of our “selfish pride in our politicians”. Perhaps it’s time for the American public to awaken Congress of their “institutional refusal to learn from its worst lapses of judgment”.

Thanks for your insight. Anonymous at page 19

As stated in Various Items (3):

“… retroactive (telecom) immunity is also so vital to the White House because it is the key to suppressing permanently any prospect that their illegal spying will be investigated and adjudicated by a court.”

In reality, this is the “only” reason the White House is pushing for telecom immunity. Not having immunity would not make us “less safe as a country” (as Gillespie states). In addition, if the telcoms haven’t done anything wrong (as the Administration infers) than there is no logical reason to push for immunity in the first place.

The people of this country need to know the extent to which our Constitutional rights have been trampled as a result of unwarranted surveillance. Only the Judicial Branch can adequately provide us with this knowledge. Retroactive telecom immunity would basically shut the door on the public’s understanding of this critical current event.

Many of us feel that the actions to be taken by the Senate Democrats in the next few days on this issue will determine the way “truly patriotic citizens” will view the democratic presidential contenders during the remainder of this year, especially in regard to the potential of agreeing to retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

No matter how the Republicans may try to frame this debate, there is no way any reasonable citizen could construe that allowing retroactive immunity would be anything more than abandoning the constitutional principles for which each Senator was elected to his/her office. If the three major democratic candidates are truly listening to the people on this issue, they should not just issue a statement enforcing their views on “no immunity”, but should also be bringing it up in every interview during this week’s campaign. Moreover, the two active Senators should join Senator Dodd, et al, this week on the Senate floor, if needed, to debate this issue.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE would consider this to be caving in on national security. This has nothing to do with national security. It has everything to do with protecting the constitutional rights of every citizen of this country.

In reality, the telecom immunity issue is not a “controversial issue”. In fact, by saying that it is “controversial”, we find ourselves playing into a trap established in the Karl Rove playbook. According to Rove Rules, if you have an issue that you want to push that, on it’s face, is to idiotic for the public to accept, you don’t get your Republican surrogates to actively push it, you just get the naïve Democrats to ignore it. The way you do that is to arrange for key media “experts” to inform the public that the issue is ”publicly controversial.” Because it is so idiotic, however, many in the public will still push their democratic representatives to oppose the issue. Unfortunately in doing so, they will thank them in advance for supporting such a “controversial” issue. The candidates, of course, will key in on the “controversial” aspect of the issue (which, in reality, isn’t controversial at all) and decide it’s just not worth the risk to take a stand on anything that’s so “publicly controversial” during an important presidential campaign.

Works every time! At least it has been working well for the last seven years.

Let’s not use the “controversial” term in our discussions on this issue. There is no controversy. The telecom immunity issue is a “public travesty”. The only controversy involves the thinking of the select few who are pushing for it to take place.

Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” was released way before my time. In fact, I never saw the film until I watched it with my daughter last year on DVD (she was learning about filibusters in her High School Government Class). We both watched in awe as James Stewart (Mr. Smith, the junior Senator from Illinois) stood on the Senate floor and spoke truth to the American people against formidable odds, including the powerful Taylor business group and the efforts of senior Senator Paine (who was already in the pocket of the Taylor machine). Needless to say, Mr. Smith won out in the end (Only in Hollywood). However, the point I’m trying to make is that even though this fictional story takes place 70 years ago, the corporate greed issues that were being addressed then were just as real then as they are today.

Today we have the Taylor machine (Telecoms) coupled with insider Senator Paine support (Rockefeller and others) presenting an issue which is completely opposed to the democratic principals of this country (Telecom immunity). We know that the junior Senator from Illinois has the oratorical capabilities to take Frank Capra’s fictional character to a new (real) historical level. Will he rise to the occasion?